Epstein Secrets

mployment law giant Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC of systemic sex discrimination after the orig

;'''.,Law360 Pro Say Podcast Listen to our new podcast here LAW FIRMS Arent Fox Baker Botts Baker Donelson Baker McKenzie Blackstone Chambers Boies Schiller Cotsirilos Tighe Dechert Dentons Desai Law Firm PC Dewey & LeBoeuf Erskine Chambers Fisher Phillips Fountain Court Chambers Greenberg Trauri

mployment law giant Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC of systemic sex discrimination after the orig

ast here LAW FIRMS Akerman Arent Fox Baker Botts Baker Donelson Baker McKenzie BakerHostetler Ballard Spahr Banner Witcoff Berger Montague Boies Schiller Buschel & Gibbons Cassin & Cassin Cohen Milstein Consovoy McCarthy Covington & Burling Dentons Desai Law Firm PC Drinker Biddle Duval & Stac

18 IV. The Remedy for the Government's Misconduct 20 A. Pursuant to its Inherent Power, this Court Should Suppress the Evidence Obtained from Boies Schiller and Dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the Fruits of that Evidence. 20 B. At a Minimum, this Court Should Order a Hearing at which Maxwell Ma

ew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.

bscribed by FBI Agent Linda Stewart, which itself was based on the reports and investigation of FBI Agent William Id. at 1208. Unbeknownst to Agent Stewart, Agent Second Circuit in v. Maxwell held a few months after Judge McMahon's ruling that Maxwell had reasonably relied on the Protective Order's gu

21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) 12 United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 16 United

o prosecutors for the purpose of fomenting an investigation. But I am not faced with that situation. Nothing in this record suggests to me that or Boies Schiller had anything to do with the Government's decision to convene a grand jury to look into the matters that were the subject of the Action. On the con

21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) 12 United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 16 United

oena. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Counts Five and Six allege that Maxwell committed perjury during two civil depositions conducted by Boies Schiller in a defamation action it filed against Maxwell on behalf of one of the firm's clients. v. Marvell, Case No. 15-cv-7433 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y). A Protecti

ew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began. None of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.

ed by FBI Agent Linda Stewart, which itself was based on the reports and investigation of FBI Agent William Brown. Id. at 1208. Unbeknownst to Agent Stewart, Agent Brown's Second Circuit in Brown v. Maxwell held a few months after Judge McMahon's ruling that Maxwell had reasonably relied on the Protecti

An Identical Gambit By The Government 10 ARGUMENT 11 A. Pursuant To Its Inherent Power, This Court Should Suppress The Evidence Obtained From Boies Schiller, And Dismiss Counts Five And Six, Which Are The Fruits Of That Evidence 11 I. The role of protective orders in civil litigation 11 2. The go

21, 2017) 17 Martindeli v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Cotp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 12, 13 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com, 273 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2001) 12 Stewart v. Hudson Hall LLC, 20 Civ. 885 (SLC), 2020 WL 7239676 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2020) 12 United States v. Avellino, 136 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 1998) 16 United